Once, years ago, hiking up Long Canyon, branches were breaking off trees because of a high wind. The breaking sounded like rifle shots. I slept under a large fallen tree trunk. The point of interest is that I slept intermittently, and while awake I heard the voices of children from India, singing. The sound was sweet but otherwise unremarkable. What was remarkable is that it was a definite sound and that it was through the night.

This year, at ‘The Sinks’, a convenient place to pitch a tent, up the Canyon Creek Trail, I heard music again, when I laid down to sleep, the first night. This time however, there was music and singing. It was clear but the words were not. The music was intensely beautiful—so beautiful that I was moved to tears a number of times. I think it was for two hours or perhaps more. It was repeated again, the second night. There was music again, subsequent nights, but now rather plain.

What could it mean? There was, of course, no external source of music. But the experience was real. I have had dreams with beautiful music felt intensely, but the only other time I’ve heard music while awake was on the Long Canyon trip.

The first meaning is the experience itself. A second meaning might be that there is a capacity for beauty that is not always accessed.

For the Way of Being

Possible plan for the essential way of being

To be modified

Simple version

Academic

Preliminary

What we want (because we have choice) as motive / beginning for the way “into the way”

But it (motive) is part of discovery (as is being itself)… of course, we have a preliminary notion of these things

But this does not mean motive or being will not be discovered or known

It leads to the notion of an algebra of philosophy (metaphysics) – algebraic metaphysics

There are essentials which may be framework for a complete version

Three essential aspects

Limitlessness

Experientiality—all being is experiential

Pathways

Reading

Add to this list

Advaita Vedanta (SEP, IEP…)

Logic

Lambda Calculus

Robinson’s arithmetic

Surreal numbers

Repeated from dialetheia—inclosure schema, truth – negation – falsity, and predicate calculus; read SEP – dialetheia | paradox | Priest | other (find)

Phone as computer

How – simulation and/or evolution

Simulation

Virtual vision

Voice and keyboard

Improved interface

Satellite link

Evolution and devolution

Despite what we think of as our greatness, we (likely) have progressed beyond adequate flexibility and openness toward the ultimate and may therefore need to devolve (in any case there is no catastrophe—being will take up the torch somewhere)

Proof of existence of the void

Existence and nonexistence are equivalent existence is used with two meanings

…on the other hand, given form and formlessness (why) : in formlessness there can be no law, pattern, limit, or constraint

A fundamental question arising re: doubt about existence of the void and its proof

“We value certainty and certain proof” but is it the way to go? (1) about existence and the nature of the ultimate (2) if not then what standards should we use (e.g., optimal outcome)? Perhaps the only certain proof is analytic. But what if there is no certainty about the ultimate? Surely that would be a lack in knowledge, not a deficit of reality. If so, it would be absurd to say that there can be no certainty or certain knowledge, but only that we have not achieved it yet.

A possible introduction or part of one

Begin with the life and thought of a human being – specific vs anonymous, common, generic, typical, representative

Questions or Answers?

Both – in interaction

How to have a conversation

First, conduction and abduction, then induction and deduction

Identified speaker and audience vs round table

What do people want?

…as part of “the way in”--part of the way in as motivation

Ideologies, psychologies… so many with pre-definition and little definition

So—begin neutrally with the idea of an individual in a range of states from negative to positive in a multi-dimensional continuum

Over and above that we would factor in

Empirical, theoretical, and evolutionary psychologies

Metaphysics—proximate, ultimate

The real metaphysics (‘rmp’)

Science and the real metaphysics

Whereas science (its theories) is roughly minimal pragmatic truth consistent with and explanatory of experience at the present time (consensus), the real metaphysics is the maximal truth consistent with experience at the present time (with enhancements noted later)

Note that this characterization of the real metaphysics is its definition, which is therefore to emerge by derivation, and not a derivation itself

What is that maximal truth?

Name it an ideal defined by “logic”, then it can be shown that

§ There is a proof from the nature of being, that our logic(s) are a subset of “logic” that at least some of our logics approximate ideal

§ We sometimes conflate our logics with “logic”

§ No description of the universe can exceed logic, which follows from the definition of “logic”

§ Fairly obviously, our logics are incomplete relative to “logic” because our logics do not exhaust modes of expression and because some of them are incomplete in themselves

§ The maximum truth as “logic” is a framework of description of the universe

First enhancement—filling in the framework

This enhancement of rmp to join it to (fill it in with) what is valid in human traditions of knowledge, pragmatic or otherwise, including science. This join can be shown to be a seamless enhancement of “logic” consistent with a modified conception of pragmatic truth relative to representation

Second enhancement—perfection relative to an ultimate value ideal

As enhanced above, rmp is not perfect representation even though the unenhanced version is. But if the ultimate (which includes the immediate) is a value, enhanced rmp in process relative to this value is perfect because it is what we have and all we have and can have

Why is this a real metaphysics?

A real metaphysics is a true picture of the real, which is known directly rather than via hypothesis and deduction.

The framework is true representation and the framework with join to tradition is perfect in terms of the value ideal of the ultimate.

Why is it the real metaphysics?

The framework is ultimate and shows the universe to be ultimate (and therefore, while it is true, it cannot be exceeded by a more inclusive picture—for even contradictory descriptions are admitted as being-less objects)

The join may be exceeded as a static system but not as a dynamic or in-process system.

The argument about limitlessness

The argument that the universe is limitless applies also to all beings because every being is itself and the void; so, the ideal metaphysics might better begin at this point and by the way mention the limitlessness of the universe; the reason that a being does not see its / the limitlessness is because of its limited perception of the extensional continuum, which includes space and time, beyond birth-death-the physical body, and the blindness of reductive empiricism

Another way to say ‘limited perception of the extensional continuum’ is ‘limited horizons of perception’

Dialetheia – June trip

The material has been moved to Dialetheia – June trip

Systems review

See systems review.html

September 5 – 27

The Trip

“Ripstein camp – Canyon Creek Lakes – Weaverville”

Miles

9/05 – 2; 9/06 – 6; 9/07 – 4; 9/08 – 2; 9/09 – 6; 9/10 – 4; 9/11 – 5; 9/12 – 10; 9/13 – 6; 9/14 – 6; 9/15 – 7; 9/16 – 11 ; 9/18 – 5; 9/19 – 5; 9/20 – 5; 9/21 – 5; 9/22 – 7 ; 9/23 – 4; 9/25 – 4; 9/26 – 4; 9/27 – 4

Total = 113

trips and trip planning

Gear and supplies

Gear

Compression sacks?

Quality boots!

Tent

Inner tent setup – total 5 stakes

4 corner stakes

1 center foot stake

2 side clips to guys or, if the rain fly is set up, to the fly

Rain fly – essential – total 2 additional stakes

4 corner attachments (no additional stakes)

2 inner Velcro attachments (to the two poles at the head of the tent)

2 stakes for two side guys

Rain fly – optional – total 3 additional stakes

2 head corner guys, stabilized by 2 stakes

1 foot century guy, stabilized by 1 stake

Total number of stakes—12 (11 above and 1 spare)

Add tensionable guy at middle of the foot of the footprint

Essentials of planning

General

Minimize and streamline planning documents.

.XLSM

Calorie rather than general days

Days of dry food

Distinguish category analysis according to bulk vs packets vs cans vs individual item (e.g., pills, slices of bread)

Introduce number of people

Camping innovation

1. Transport,

2. Where,

3. What to take (minimize).

Documents

Pics of maps

My agenda – return and beyond

Upon return

Laundry, layout gear, groceries, sleep

Later – replenish

To do

~~Meds side effects matrix, esp. Naltrexone and regimen~~

~~Priorities – matrix of activities, table of actions vs time periods~~

~~GI, physical, mental – cognition and mood~~

~~X – walk and bike~~

~~Passport~~

~~Relationships – allies~~

~~Health – fat, weight~~

~~Daily – hydrate, accept and deal with PM Stress~~

~~Ginger tea~~

~~Real CDL~~

Money, place, and SI

General

~~Resources – “Senior”, “housing”, “area agencies on aging”, “rental / property management”, apartments, newspapers, Craigslist~~

~~How much do I need a month – how much can I afford on rent (into the future)~~

~~$.resources > consult~~

~~Work? Pro? General?~~

Systematic search

~~Cost~~

~~Weather~~

~~Community~~

~~Nature~~

~~Work~~

~~Health resources~~

~~Phone as hotspot~~

Where

Humboldt – Trinity

CA – US

Mexico, Central and S. America

India – world

Issues of self

Judgment

What is judgment and judgmentalism

When we need to act but do not have full information, we may need to make judgment. The time spent on the judgment depends on the situation.

Judgmentalism is the tendency to make premature judgment.

The main issue

I do not want others to make or offer judgment of me or my life except when I have asked for it and they have heard and understood the issue at hand.

I have thought this through over many years and this is my conclusion regarding what is best for me. That is, most judgments on the basis of inadequate information or knowledge are worse than nothing.

Details, quibbles

But people don’t mind positive judgments…

1. It’s not about judgment, it’s about uninformed judgment,

2. And uninformed positive judgment is ultimately tiresome.

But it’s good for you, I mean well and so on…

1. No, it’s not good for me,

2. Even if you mean well.

Regarding judgmentalism on general matters—I don’t like it but don’t wish to shut it down.

I’ve noticed that judgmental types tend to get angry when judged.

On therapy

Therapists are trained to avoid the ego trap of judgmentalism and offer advice, if at all, when information is adequate and the client receptive.

Demons

To do in the moment

Stop,

Feel,

Accept,

Where it’s me,

Where it’s them.

To do as a program—ID

Triggers and responses,

Sources and isolate

The way of being

My presentation

My extraordinary agenda

For talking to people—

1. Who might be interested,

2. Who I might want to interest.

The presentation itself

Dynamic!

On the worldview of the way of being

A static view of a being – a planet, a world, a human being – is one whose essence is seen as unchanging (except for accidents; and note that birth, phase of life, and death are seen as part of essence). Particularly, in the static view, a human being is not seen as another kind of animal, e.g., a tiger or a whale, or a god, because a human being ‘cannot’ be a tiger or a god.

In the worldview of the way of being, beings are not static in the above sense. Therefore, in coming from a static perspective the worldview of the way of being – the real metaphysics – may seem not just strange but an affront to one’s sense of reality and possibility.

From culture, ordinary experience, and adaptation, we are naturally prone to a static view, but insight and analysis shows the way to the dynamic view, which may then enter into intuition.

Is there a real conflict between the static and the dynamic? No, the static view is appropriate to shorter time scales and some aspects of a material perspective; the dynamic view is appropriate to longer time scales and a real perspective.

My presentation – a rendering

Some tentative characteristics of the way of being, selected randomly and in random order (shading marks a summary)—

The way of being has newness

With sources in

§ The history of ideas, eastern and western,

§ My experience and thought.

Has inspiration in the question ‘What is the best that we can do?’

§ In this world, this life,

§ Beyond – the ultimate (if there is such),

§ Both (are they essentially interwoven).

The issues are approached via worldviews and ideologies

Both (relevant facts and organizing concepts are important)

Many worldviews (see the latest essay in print) are non-founded because they depend on posits (hypotheses) or even ill founded (when the posits are fictions); examples of posits are matter, mind, god, which are without foundation and with pre-judice.

Came to see that such foundation is limited

In capturing some but not all the immediate

In capturing little of the true ultimate.

Thought to found a worldview in the world

As it is—its existence or being,

Which has been deep and mysterious on the one hand and trival on the other

But which (being) may be seen simply as a designator for ‘what is’ and the depth, then, is not of but within being.

And for just that reason is not necessarily trivial (but found powerful and deep in the way of being).

The worldview – the real metaphysics

Goes beyond extant views in being well founded (proven relative to givens and in showing that whatever is true is at least implicit in the view)

Is ultimate in foundation (proven, yet doubt is acknowledged and addressed)

§ In having or making no posits

§ In being founded, not in things, but in necessity.

§ In showing the universe to be limitless (every logical conception is realized)

o Not just in extent and duration,

o But in showing the universe to be realization of maximal consistent coneption,

o Where there seems to be conceptual conflict, the realizations may be in distinct cosmoses

§ May be difficult to understand (for it cuts through millenia of thought and requires careful attention to meaning and Gestalt)

§ Synthesizes the immediate and the ultimate in a high level of description in which this world and its issues are on the way (path) to the ultimate.

o ‘Ultimate’ does not mean ‘perfect’ in the usual received senses but must include perfection and imperfection – which is neither fortunate nor unfortunate but true

o Deals with pain, doubt, imperfection, and enjoyment

o The way of path begins in this world and addresses it issues – and has reference to and employs and builds upon what is good in traditional ways

Agrees with the truth(s) of

§ Science – except unwarranted projection beyond the empirical realm,

§ Religion – where it has truth, real or symbolic, and where it encourages positive community and values.

Is empirical, rational, and meaningful

There are peak beings

§ We are part of the peak and on the way to it

§ Not remote, for we are part of the process

§ The real metaphysics and experience – with its two sides – are part of the essentials (which use paradigms from our cosmos imaginatively, generically, and rationally)

§ In the forefront of our minds at all times are the thoughts of

o The immediate and the ultimate as one,

o Immediate needs and a related program of action.

The only real proof is necessity

As argued in How and why are we here?

Preface to a new edition

What is new in this edition

Meaning (in the sense of significance for being and action) and foundational content are separated.

Why? Because the two kinds of content are not of equal interest to all readers. Those interested in meaning may find the foundation tiresome, especially in its details. Those interested in analysis and foundation may find the meaning to challenge their view of being-in-the-world.

General content

The general content presents the world view of the way of being and consequences for individual and social behavior in a range of spheres, secular (personal, communal, economic, political, scientific and technological) and trans-secular (spiritual and, in some senses of the word, religious).

The worldview and its reasoning are elaborated sufficiently for its consequences to be reasonably evident.

However, this part does not emphasize detail or analysis. It may tell stories to bring the material home.

The foundational or academic content

This part emphasizes foundation – concepts, reasons for selection of the particular concepts, their relationships, what is given, and reasoning from the given.

It strives to leave as little as possible as hypothesis, explaining why and how there is a real framework (i.e., not hypothetical) and a fill in with detail that is touched by hypothesis in individual situations but not in the general context (with an explanation of what it means that it is not touched by hypothesis in the general context). It explains the significance of this framework and detail for knowledge of the nature of the robust real and its distinction from fragile realities.

An issue relating to the separation of content

But is not the content so essentially seamless that the separation retards both parts? Yes, for the foundational gives a better understanding of how to deploy the content toward meaning, and the meaning gives life to and motivates the foundation.

Therefore, the separation is not going to be complete. In any case, it cannot be.

Regarding detail and completeness

In order address all significant areas of life and action, this edition will

1. Include templates for action.

2. An account of human knowledge (‘etc’) and culture, founded in the ‘real metaphysics’, the worldview of the way.

General remarks

Since the material hangs together and the editions are iterative, it is essential that some older developments are included.

But this will not be mere repetition, for the older material will be reworked to reflect new development and insight.

And it will be made clear that the old material is not presented as new.

Further, while some aspects of the new and the old will be pointed out in the preface, it is impossible to point out all such aspects (due to limitations of memory).

Some concepts for the way of being

Into the way

Not escapism, but simple problem solving

Being

Beings

Universe

“World”, “Cosmos”

Experiential (subject – relation – object; active – neutral – receptive)—hierarchy: general, primitive … human … peak

Are all beings experiential – extended meaning or range of ‘experience’ – actual and potential

The void

Limitlessness

Meaning

Demonstration

Consequences for being-in-the-universe

The ultimate

- “That which cannot be spoken, known, or become” yields a hierarchy of paradox

- The ultimate, immediate and all beings are identical

o In descriptions that do not recognize spatiotemporal distinction,

o But not in limited spatiotemporal description.

Issues

The void

That the void cannot be eternal and is therefore not the void only seems paradoxical relative to preconception.

Problems and resolutions regarding being

Also see On the ineffability / unknowability of being, below.

Ineffability implies effability…

If the grammar of being implies that being is not a being means that we have decided what being is before we know what it is

If the void º being, this is paradoxical only on a misconception of the void

Experience and experiential being and meaning

Being-in-the-universe (path)

Being vs process

The real

Metaphysics

Path

Looking outward

On the ineffability / unknowability of being

‘Being’ – (the property of) ‘that which is’ – has been said to be (i) ineffable (understood as not describable with language) (ii) unknowable (iii) deep (iv) mysterious.

§ So far as ineffable, is this the result of empirical knowledge of human language or empirical-logical knowledge of all language and are we here overdependent on empirical models of ‘natural’ and ‘formal’ languages (and their amalgamation).

§ So far as unknowable, is it in linguistic terms, or in terms of intuition – perception – and – language – and (our) entire being?

§ But is no talk of ineffability possible only since being already has some effability? Or the thought of unknowability possible since we already have some (intuitive and explicit) knowledge of being?

§ And are these degrees of ineffability and unknowability positive characteristics of being rather than negative judgments on language and knowledge in that being is always in discovery and emergence?

§ And, to what extent is the emphasis on the negative judgments above the result of a desire to

o Be deep and mysterious,

o Turn knowledge into a self-perpetuating industry and source of employment as in more than transient academies (and universities)

o Be seen as authoritative – by posing as a stern source of criticism?

§ But there may be depth and mystery within rather than of being!

Logic

Logic does not refer to things, but to descriptions of things.

Science refers to descriptions and, via descriptions, also to things.

Why logic is nothing?

For a hypothetical description to be valid, it must correspond to or correctly describe the world (this is science).

But prior to science, descriptions must be capable of describing—i.e., not ruled out by internal structure. Which is to say that their structure must be logical

Thus, science is ‘of’ both world and description, but logic is only of description and not of the world. There is no logic in the void. In this sense, logic is nothing.

Introduction to The Way of Being

An original aim of the way was to answer the question “What is the best that we can do… what are the best lives that we can live?

The question of the original aim is answered by reflection – experience – doing – living in interaction.

Out of this and with this come worldviews – pictures of the way that the world is in terms of fact, pattern, kind, value of both the large and ultimate and the small and every day.

The concept of ‘worldview’ is not esoteric for everyone has at least a tacit worldview.

In TWB, we develop an ultimate worldview – the ‘real metaphysics’.

As preliminary, we consider common kinds of worldview.

How and why are we here?

If the ‘how’ is another being, the question is pushed back but not resolved.

Therefore, the only satisfactory how is something other than a being. What is a case of a reason that is not a being? One reason sometimes given is possibility. But mere possibility is not a good reason, for it allows that what could happen could also not happen. Therefore, it must be the particular case of possibility that is impossible to not happen—i.e., it must be necessity.

And the possibility cannot be physical possibility, for that kind of possibility has being (laws have being). It must therefore be a kind of possibility that has no being—possibility relating to description alone, i.e., logical possibility.

That is, we are here because it is necessary (which is what we conclude by other means, e.g., the argument from the void).

And since necessity presumes nothing but itself, if one state—our state—is necessary, all logically possible states must be necessary (as we have concluded from the argument from the void).

The ‘why’ is part of that how. There is no superposed why. However, there is that we can understand and do good, which is open to discovery.

We live in the present, which is manifest, but from necessity, we live in the immediate and the ultimate as one.

Why am I this particular me?

It is but one possibility. Does it not rule out the possibility that I am other cases of ‘me’? No, for ‘I’ will experience all cases of ‘me’.

The immediate and the ultimate are one.

Do we move toward the ultimate… or are we already there? Both!

Dealing with pain

1. Healthy living and lifestyle—physical, mental, spiritual, and communal (there are many written ways).

2. The best therapy of the time.

3. The more fortunate aid the less fortunate.

4. Balance of address of pain with progress, i.e., being on the way or path—as far as reasonable, not stopping process to wait for elimination of pain and doubt.

Dialetheia—from the trips

Dialetheia – September trip

General points to be classified

- Publish

- Main thesis—dialetheia are the result of insufficient discrimination, metaphorical / didactic equivalence of non-equivalences, excess absolutism, confusion, conflation of meaning (etc), non existent objects assigned properties, which (think) amount to issues of discrimination—i.e., that there are no real dialetheia

- Secondary thesis—nonetheless dialetheia and logics developed to accommodate apparent dialetheia may be useful

- Analyses of dialetheia (make / continue a list)

- Re the liar paradox – why should we want sentences such as the following to have truth values—

o “I declare this sentence to be false / true.”

o “This sentence is false / true.”

- Other theses

o There are classes of dialetheia (identify them)

o The machinery of logical calculi is mostly unnecessary regarding essential (philosophical) considerations on dialetheia

Sources of dialetheia

Absolutes

Often an exaggerated expression of a general but not universal truth, stated instructively or as the result of a tendency to absolutism

Example—”We cannot know or speak of being.” Which is not true, for it already speaks of being.

Resolution—the truth is that it may be difficult to precisely know or speak of being, especially fully and deeply.

Erroneous thinking about language

Language is precise and complete (given that language is in the world, this does may lack clear meaning).

Every grammatical sentence has reference.

No grammatical sentences have or entail consequences than explicit ones.

Reference to nonexistent objects

Reference to nonexistent objects, which can (or are allowed to) have any value of any property, particularly properties, P and ~P, which is (or would be) a dialetheia. This (properties of nonexistent objects) is disallowed in standard logic, but may creep in and give the appearance of a dialetheia.

But this also occurs with the void, which case is not eliminated by reference to standard logic—for the void exists and does not exist. This is or seems to be a real dialetheia. However, it is not, for the meaning of ‘existence’ changes when talking about the void rather than most objects. For most objects existence is manifest existence and nonexistence is absence of manifestation, i.e., absence of an object for the concept. On the other hand, for the void, existence is nonmanifest (in fact) but manifest (in their being an object of the concept).

Conflation of distinct meanings

In the previous example, the dialetheia arose because there a distinction of meaning, which became conflated for the particular case of the void. As we saw, for the void, existence has two senses, whereas, for most objects it has one sense.

The Thomson Lamp Paradox is an example in which insufficient discrimination (thinking that ‘on’ and ‘off’ at the same time are not distinct situations) leads to a seeming dialetheia (the identity of existence and nonexistence of the void may also be seen as a case of insufficient discrimination).

Metaphor

Seek examples.

Search

… in my writing and the literature, especially the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on dialetheism.

Dialetheia – June trip

A book or essay? Just dialetheia? Or dialetheia and paradox?

Study inclosure schema, truth – negation – falsity, and predicate calculus.

Read SEP – dialetheia | paradox | Priest | other (find)

Issues

A dialetheia is defined as a true contradiction. In classical logic this leads to explosion; this is also called ‘trivialism’—i.e., all statements are true. So, some issues are—

1. Sources—actual and potential: paradoxes (falsidical, veridical, antinomy, contradiction-as-dialetheia), metaphorical expression of truth, suppression of distinctions leading to apparent equivalence of contraries.

2. Are there dialetheias without explosion or trivialism? Yes, and will take a non-standard logic in which a true contradiction does not lead to explosion. There are such (paraconsistent) logics and one is a logic in which there are three truth values, true, false, and both.

3. Which of the following views is or are true (i) reality is contradictory (apparently Hegel’s view) (ii) reality is not contradictory but is such that any full or sufficiently full description of it must be dialetheic (iii) #ii is not true but we must resort to dialetheic description of reality because our modes of expression are limited (iv) we often do resort to dialetheic modes (there are many instructive historical and modern examples) of description but we can overcome some or all of them with newer modes of expression or received modes that make finer distinctions than in the dialetheia (v) nonetheless, the dialetheia are useful and instructive (and what is more, the logics that may be motivated by dialetheia are useful in their own right) (vi) the dialetheia are not particularly useful or instructive (vii) the view that there are no dialetheia which has been the main received view in western philosophy since Aristotle.

Why dialetheia?

Reasons to consider and develop theories for dialetheia

Dialetheia may be real, an essential aspect of description, or inessential but useful and instructive.

Logics motivated by dialetheia may be useful in their own right. Note that a paraconsistent logic may reduce to standard logic if the cases of ‘both true and false’ are eliminated from the universe of facts of the logic.

Dialetheia as instructive paradox.

Situations where we do not know whether a proposition (or its negation) is true.

Holding two contradictory possible truths in mind when one does not know which—if either—is true may be the true way to truth… or at least an effective way (the contradictories may be both true but in different frameworks or fact universes o which we might not have been aware).

Some kinds of dialetheic situation

The following are from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/.

Transition states: when I exit the room, there is an instant between inside and outside when I am both.

Zeno’s paradox that a moving arrow is both where it is, and it is not.

Borderline cases of vague predicates, e.g., adultness, and, generally, the sorites paradoxes.

Multi-criterial predicates, e.g., 'liberal' or 'conservative’.

Inconsistent laws, especially when there is no law that resolves applicability.

New realism—In post-Kantian metaphysics, a movement sometimes ‘new realism’ is a return to realism but recognizes that mind-independent objects are or may be impossible to know and so the metaphysics would make knowledge claims that the metaphysics (seemingly) precludes.

Paradoxes of theology “an omnipotent God can create a stone that is too heavy for God to lift”.

In Heidegger’s later writing, being is both an entity and not an entity.

Examples of dialetheia

Introduction to the examples

The point to the examples and kinds is to give reasons for and against (i) so as to perhaps show that (all) dialetheias have meaning in a semantic context but may or may not be resolved into non-dialetheias by refining the context (ii) and so add to the ideas that dialetheism is a useful but not essential feature of reality and / or its description (the *may* case) or is an essential and more than just useful feature of reality and its description (the *may not* case)

Simple contradiction

It is raining and it is not raining.

True—i.e., the statement is a dialetheia—It is raining in Beijing and not raining in Mumbai.

False—the statement is not a dialetheia—It is raining at a specific place and time and not raining at the same place and time.

Note that such dialetheias are excluded from standard logic by requiring specificity of context.

Importantly, note that the resolution of the dialetheia by noting that the dialetheic case suppresses distinctions which allow the dialetheia. One question being addressed here is whether there are absolute dialetheias—ones that cannot be resolved in some manner.

Inconsistent premises

The foregoing is an example of inconsistent premises.

In classical logic, inconsistent premises lead to explosion—inconsistent premises always make an argument valid (a paradox of entailment).

Reference to a non-existent object

“The tenth major planet in our solar system is not green” and “The tenth major planet in our solar system is not not-green” are both true.

Resolution—standard logic requires all (singular) terms to denote an object in the universe of objects under consideration; however, there is no ‘tenth major planet in our solar system’

There are dialetheias and there are none

As we see below by exhaustion, whether there are or are none depends on the semantic context of the putative dialetheias. Which also holds in this case.

We are limited and limitless

As argued in the argument about limitlessness, we are limited when our horizons of perception-conception are limited, but limitless when we do not restrict the horizon.

Liar paradox

While the liar paradox is “This statement is false” it is instructive to also consider the paradox with ‘false’ replaced by (i) true (ii) true and false.

Call sentence (A) in quotes above. If true, it is false; if false, true Þ if it is either, it is both, but must it be either?

An argument for A to be a dialetheia would require that some statements (a) have no truth value or (b) have a truth value other than true or false, e.g., neutral (not the same as no truth value) or both (true and false); the latter would require a semantics and logic requiring more than two truth values.

Frege argued that “The sentence ‘It is raining’ is true” and “It is raining” have the same meaning, but that is not quite true. In the short version, that the sentence has a (classical) truth value is typically implied and inferred but in the long version it is explicitly asserted.

That is, “This statement is false”, if the typical meaning-template is assumed, means “The statement ‘This statement is false’ has a truth value and that truth value is ‘true’ ”.

But consider “This statement is true”—it is true if true and false if false but does not have to be either.

To interpret the liar paradox as dialetheic or not depends on semantic context.

Other paradoxes of self-reference

Barber paradox. If a barber shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves then he shaves himself if and only if he does not shave himself.

All Cretans are liars (another version of the liar paradox).

Grelling. If heterological means “not applicable to itself” then ‘heterological’ is heterological if and only if it is not.

Russell's paradox. The set of sets that do not contain themselves contains itself if and only if it does not.

Some paradoxes of vagueness

In the following paradoxes the dialetheia is “it is and is not the same ship” and “a heap remains and does not”.

Ship of Theseus. If a small part of a ship is replaced, it remains the same ship. Is it the same ship if all parts are replaced? If the discarded parts are then put together, it, too, is the same ship?

Sorites paradox. If one removes a single grain of sand from a heap, they still have a heap. If they keep removing single grains (i) therefore it remains a heap but (ii) eventually there will be no heap.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

In two different places.

Enlightened, yet not enlightened (enlightened and confused)

The Thomson Lamp Paradox

This is a paradox due to a British philosopher, James Thomson, in 1954 (see the little manual and dialetheia for details). A lamp is switched on at time 0, off at time 1/2, on at 3/4, off at 7/8, and so on; Thomson then asks whether the lamp is on or off at time 1). The apparent paradox is that a light that switched on and off and an infinite rate would be on and off (not on) at the same time, which is apparently paradoxical (note—here, we do not concern ourselves with the question of whether such a lamp is physically possible—we are concerned with its logical possibility). The dialetheic interpretation is that being on and off at the same time is a paradox for lamps switching on and off at a finite rate but not for an infinite rate. Now ‘on and off at the same time’ seems as though it is a logical contradiction. But it is not, for the real impossibility is for the lamp to be on and off in a single situation, but at time = 1, many distinct situations obtain at that point. The apparent paradox arises because we usually associate a single time with a single situation. But with infinite rates many situations coincide with a single time. The dialetheic nature of Thomson’s lamp depends on whether we count different situations at the same time as one situation (dialetheia) or many (non-dialetheia), which resolves the paradox and also reveals it as a dialetheia and non-dialetheia.

Note, perhaps the problem of description of many situations packed into a given time can be achieved with infinitesimals or surreal numbers.

More paradoxes—supertasks and superbeings

Ross–Littlewood paradox. After alternately adding and removing balls to a vase infinitely often, the number of balls is one and zero.

God can do anything—therefore he can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, but he can lift it.

An irresistible force can and cannot move an immovable object.

God knows in advance what a person will decide, therefore there cannot be free will, but God can bestow free will on the person.

An object can be at two different places at the same time

Consider an object moving at an infinite speed. This is essentially the same as the Thomson lamp.

Two distinct objects at the same place at the same time

This is impossible on some physical theories of matter but not a logical impossibility.

That being is ineffable (that which cannot be spoken) says something about being

I am the universe but here and now, I am not (from Vedanta)

For realization, one must express and suppress one’s ego

The universe is deterministic and indeterministic

For more paradoxes for possible dialetheia see Paradox - Wikipedia and List of paradoxes - Wikipedia.

Kinds of paradox

Sourced from Paradox - Wikipedia, the classification may help clarify the relation between the paradoxes and the dialetheias.

Quine

Veridical

Falsidical

Antinomy—paradox that reaches self-contradiction by properly applying accepted standards of reasoning

Dialetheias

Ramsey

Logical

Semantic

Dialetheia—tentative outline and plan

Plan

List examples from my writing and the literature.

Identify sources of dialetheia; classify.

Defuse; see whether real dialetheia remain—

Definition—a dialetheia is a true contradiction.

Note that there are dialetheas but many can be defused by careful analysis and use of language, define a real dialetheia as a dialetheia that cannot be defused (and a defusible dialetheia as one that can be defused).

Then, the fundamental question is whether there are real dialetheias.

Study as much logic (classical and variant) as is necessary to write comprehensively and cogently.

Introduction

Define dialetheias and dialetheism.

Give an example or two.

Show how they do not lead to explosion and give a simple logic under which explosion does not occur.

Suggest the theses (i) there are dialetheias (ii) there are (may be) no real dialetheias (iii) but it may be useful to admit them and appropriate logics (iv) such logics may have use beyond application to dialetheism.